Automated method and system for a gaming opportunity

ABSTRACT

A method and system of applying for a gaming opportunity, including accessing a server for the gaming opportunity through a player device providing identification data to the server, and receiving an indication of eligibility for the gaming opportunity from the server based on at least one composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility for the gaming opportunity, the composite score obtained by weighting disparate player data based on at least one business rule and applying the weighted data to at least one decision model to generate the score, the disparate player data obtained from a plurality of data sources.

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser.No. 60/907,825, filed on Apr. 18, 2007, which is expressly incorporatedby reference herein.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. Nos.[Attorney Docket Nos. 068042-5002 and 068042-5004], which also claim thebenefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/907,825.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method and system for electronicgaming, and in particular, to multiple jurisdiction electronic gamingwith remote access capability.

DISCUSSION OF THE RELATED ART

Over the span of a few short years, advancements in computer networksand communication technology have bridged the physical gap betweenusers. In particular, the Internet has gone from a highly specializedquasi-public computer network used by a relatively narrow group ofindividuals and institutions to a broadly based worldwide web thattouches upon the daily lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions,of individuals, businesses and other entities across the globe. Theexplosive growth of the Internet has brought with it an equallyexpansive growth of its use for exchanging and sharing information,providing services and conducting commercial or business transactions.Business transactions conducted over the Internet provide individualsacross the world the ability to shop for a wide variety of goods andservices, offered by countless different businesses and commercialoperations, merely through the use of a personal computer connected tothe Internet by way of a standard modem. The Internet, and to a lesserextent intranet local area networks, have caused rapid growth in thedesire for various online gaming opportunities, from role playing games(RPGs) in expansive virtual worlds to competitive games pitting oneplayer against another.

Gambling in the U.S. is controlled by federal and state laws andregulations. Most countries throughout the world also have regulationsrestricting gambling. Despite strict and heavy laws and regulations,there are now at least 38 states with card rooms. California, forexample, has approximately 100 facilities with card tables. Gamingfacilities are also introducing electronic card game tables. Theelectronic tables allow for electronic interaction between the house andthe players as well as electronic interaction between players.

As briefly discussed above, gambling is a highly regulated activity, asmost governmental jurisdictions throughout the world believe that, ifnot controlled, it can have detrimental effects on society. The gatingfactor for many regulators is the degree of skill involved in the game.Where less skill is required, (i.e., more chance than skill), such aswith a wheel of fortune, regulators generally feel more restriction isrequired. Where more player skill is required to participate,regulators, though cautious, are relatively less stringent. In manyjurisdictions, most card games are considered games of skill, notchance.

In California, a card gaming facility may charge a fee for use of thetable, but may not take a percentage of a pot. Accordingly, in order tomaximize profits, gaming facilities attempt to maximize the number ofplayers participating in the game. This strategy generally holds true inother jurisdictions as well. With revenues tied to the number ofplayers, facilities need ways to enable players to play even when enoughplayers are not physically present in the facility. Therefore, with theincreased usage of the Internet, and with the advent of sophisticatedLAN (i.e., local area network) or WAN (i.e., wide area network)Intranets, the advantages of providing an efficient, reliable and securemethod for a gaming facility to allow players to participate in a cardgame, locally or via remote access, may be desirable to increase thenumber of players, thereby potentially increasing house profits.Moreover, because such a system would not require the player to bepresent at the card table, the player may be elsewhere, perhaps eating ameal, enjoying a show, relaxing in another lounge, etc., therebyincreasing play time and player enjoyment.

Online gaming with gambling elements, however, requires strict andaccurate ways to verify players' credit, the types of games they canplay, and especially their eligibility to play—many times based onplayer age and location. Because of the highly regulated environment andeligibility rules that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a needexists for a secure, timely, dynamic credit checking, age verification,location verification, account establishment system that detectsineligible players while minimizing the risk of losing an eligibleplayer and maximizes use of the many variables that come into play whenevaluating potential players coming from multiple jurisdictions, ages,backgrounds, experience levels and the like.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, the present invention is directed to a method and systemfor electronic gaming, and in particular, to multiple jurisdictionelectronic gaming with remote access capability.

Embodiments of the invention provide a system and methods for onlinegaming of card games and other games of skill, with players able to playwith each other while located in one or more locations in one or moregaming jurisdictions. The present invention provides a system and methodfor online gaming for players physically located in one or morelocations and/or within one or more gaming jurisdictions via an Intranetor the Internet. Exemplary embodiments include applying the system andmethod of the present invention to electronic card games, such as poker,pai gow, blackjack, and the like. The system can also be applied toother games of skill without departing from the scope of the invention.

One exemplary embodiment includes a system and method for a gamingfacility to evaluate a card player user in order to facilitate a “costof annoyance” informed decision as to whether the facility will allowthe player to establish a player's account or participate in gamingactivities at a particular point in time. The decision may be based ondynamic house weighting factors including, for example, the locale ofthe facility, the applicable jurisdictional rules and regulations, theplayer's age, the player's history, at least one of the player's creditratings, the time of day, the proposed period of play, and the like.According to exemplary embodiments of the invention, a gaming facilitymay have an automated credit checking system that calculates a cost ofannoyance calculation for prospective players, thereby preventing theloss of preferred players due to false credit reports, errors,oversights and the like. Depending on the classification of the player,a player may be restricted to a particular play methodology (rules) andstrategy, or provided strategic coaching.

The invention reduces the manual processing used to establisheligibility, thereby reducing processing costs, provides more accurateresults by increasing the number of factors considered in determiningeligibility, minimizes adverse effects from false positive and negativeresults, and allows for refinements in player classification that mayresult in restrictions in activity (e.g., enforced strategy) and/orprovision of assistance (i.e., coaching) rather than simply denyingservice to the player.

To achieve these and other advantages in accordance with the purpose ofthe present invention, as embodied and broadly described, a method ofapplying for a gaming opportunity includes the steps of accessing aserver for the gaming opportunity through a player device, providingidentification data to the server, and receiving an indication ofeligibility for the gaming opportunity from the server based on at leastone composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility for the gamingopportunity, the composite score obtained by weighting disparate playerdata based on at least one business rule and applying the weighted datato at least one decision model to generate the score, the disparateplayer data obtained from a plurality of data sources.

In another aspect, a system for a gaming opportunity includes a playerdevice in communication with a server, the player device providingidentification data to the server, and receiving an indication ofeligibility for the gaming opportunity from the server based on at leastone composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility for the gamingopportunity, the composite score obtained by weighting disparate playerdata based on at least one business rule and applying the weighted datato at least one decision model to generate the score, the disparateplayer data obtained from a plurality of data sources.

In yet another aspect, a computer program product comprising computerreadable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructionsthat, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform amethod of applying for a gaming opportunity includes the steps ofaccessing a server for the gaming opportunity through a player device,providing identification data to the server, and receiving an indicationof eligibility for the gaming opportunity from the server based on atleast one composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility for thegaming opportunity, the composite score obtained by weighting disparateplayer data based on at least one business rule and applying theweighted data to at least one decision model to generate the score, thedisparate player data obtained from a plurality of data sources.

It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description andthe following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory and areintended to provide further explanation of the invention as claimed.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are included to provide a furtherunderstanding of the invention and are incorporated in and constitute apart of this specification, illustrate embodiments of the invention and,together with the description, serve to explain the principles of theinvention. In the drawings:

FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system architecture of the presentinvention;

FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the process for opening anew account in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account verificationprocess in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account verificationprocess incorporating a manual screening in accordance with the presentinvention;

FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that determinesjurisdictional requirements and screens players against determinedjurisdictional requirements in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary embodiment using business rules toscreen players in accordance with the present invention;

FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an exemplary embodiment using a compositescore to determine eligibility in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that calculates a cost ofannoyance in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary embodiment for gaining access to agaming system in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a more detailed view of asign-on process in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary embodiment allowing a player to “bank”a game in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary embodiment providing automated coachingtips to players in accordance with the present invention;

FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that determines whether aplayer is eligible for automated play in accordance with the presentinvention; and

FIG. 14 illustrates an embodiment allowing automated player play inaccordance with the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

Reference will now be made in detail to the exemplary embodiments of thepresent invention, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanyingdrawings.

The present invention is directed to a method and system for electronicgaming, and in particular, to multiple jurisdiction electronic gamingwith remote access capability. In accordance with the present invention,a system and methods for providing automated account verification andapproval, automated and manual player eligibility screening, automatedjurisdictional regulatory compliance, automated player strategyenforcement and automated player coaching for online card games aredisclosed.

System Architecture

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of system architecture in accordance withthe present invention. Through a data communications network (100), suchas connections to the Internet and/or through connections to LAN or WANintranets, multiple players may participate in a gaming opportunity,such as a card game, locally or via remote access. The datacommunications network, such as a connection to the Internet and/orIntranet, for example, can be secure or non-secure. In the embodimentshown, players in multiple jurisdictions and multiple locations withinjurisdictions are connected to each other via a data communicationschannel. By allowing electronic access to a gaming opportunity, such asa card game, for example, players may play in multiple games, therebyincreasing play time, player enjoyment, and gaming facility houserevenue.

Screening and/or play may be coordinated through one or more servers(102) in a gaming center (120). The servers (102) may include one ormore database servers, application servers, and web servers (not shown).The one or more servers (102) may be centralized with all functions anddata consolidated within the gaming center (120). The one or moreservers (102) may be centralized in one location or may be on adistributed platform. Other server configurations may be used withoutdeparting from the scope of the invention. The gaming center (120) inaccordance with the present invention may also have a call center (104).

The system in accordance with the present invention includes at leastone gaming device through which a player gains access to a gamingopportunity. For example, a gaming device may be computer (106), playerdevice (108), or portable gaming device (110). However, other electronicdevices may be used without departing from the scope of the presentinvention. For example, players may play on a computer (106), such as apersonal computer (PC), a player device (108), such as an electronicgaming table or gaming kiosk, or a portable gaming device (110), such asa mobile phone or personal digital assistant (PDA). Other electronicdevice that can connect to the data communications network (100) may beused without departing from the scope of the invention. As used herein,these devices are collectively referred to as player devices. A playerdevice may connect to the one or more servers (102) via Internet,Intranet, LAN, WAN, peer-to-peer, telephone, wireless connections, suchas satellite, cellular, wi-fi, and bluetooth, or other communicationchannels including other interface devices without departing from thescope of the invention. Accordingly, players may be physically locatedin different gaming jurisdictions (112, 114, 116) but still be connectedto each other remotely. Players may play on gaming terminals that arephysically connected to each other. Other embodiments of the inventionmay be used to provide a system and method for online gaming of cardgame players desiring to play with each other while located in one ormore gaming jurisdictions. The system architecture shown in FIG. 1 isexemplary only and is not intended to be limited to what is shown.

New Account Generation

FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the process for opening anew account in accordance with the present invention. In the embodimentshown, the player completes a new account application (202). Theserver(s) (102) then checks the application for valid player dataentries (204). Examples of valid entry checks include (a) ensuring thatentries have been made in all required fields, (b) ensuring that thecontents of a field is in the proper format (e.g., e-mail addresscontains text with no spaces, followed by an “@” character, followed bytext with no spaces, followed by a period, followed by text with nospaces), and (c) verifying the data entered using an independent source(e.g., address is verified using a U.S. Postal Service database). Theapplication is then screened by one or more applicable eligibilityalgorithms (206). Eligibility algorithms include, but are not limitedto, checking jurisdictional eligibility, age eligibility, regulatory orplayer exclusion lists, and credit eligibility. In other embodiments,players may also be screened for eligibility based on player skilllevel, and/or any history of using impermissible playing methods (e.g.,counting cards).

In the embodiment shown, an application that has passed the eligibilityalgorithm screening (206) is then screened by a cost of annoyancealgorithm (208). An exemplary embodiment of the cost of annoyancealgorithm is described below in reference to FIGS. 7A and 7B. If the newaccount application passes the annoyance algorithm screening (208), thenew account application is checked for compliance with house rules(210). Non-limiting examples of house rules include screening for aminimum cost of annoyance score separately or in combination with othereligibility scores, which are described in detail below. Other houserules may be used, and may vary from establishment to establishment. Forinstance, a player may be ruled out based solely on the fact that dataentered in the application was proved false through a third party dataverification process. Once the application is found to be in compliancewith house rules, the application is accepted (212).

In an alternative exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the system ofthe present invention allows for manual reviews any time an applicationdoes not pass an automated screening. For example, if the applicationfails the eligibility algorithm screening (206), the application issubmitted for manual review (214). The application may be screened by amanual reviewer for potential subjective criteria that may not have beenappreciated by the algorithm screening process (i.e., 206, 208). Uponmanual review, the application may then be accepted (212) or rejected(218). Likewise, if the application is found not to comply with houserules, it may be manually reviewed (214). The manual reviewer thendecides whether to accept the application (212) or reject theapplication (218).

Account Verification

FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account verificationprocess in accordance with the present invention. In the embodimentshown, the system of the present invention determines whether a playeris a new player on the system or a returning player (302). New playersare invited to open a new account (304). The system prompts the newplayer for player-specific information, for example, through the newaccount application process as described above in reference to FIG. 2and/or submission of documentation, such as copies of governmentidentification and money transfer information. Other data may also beused without departing from the scope of this invention. If the playeris an existing player, the player is prompted to verify player data byproviding personal information attributable only to the player, such aspasswords, the correct answer or answers to personal informationquestions, biometric data, and the like (306).

Once an existing player verifies player data (306) or a new playercompletes a new account application (304) and is approved, the player isautomatically screened for compliance with system-determined criteria(308). Non-limiting examples of data used to screen the player forcompliance with system-determined criteria include credit reports, IPaddress of the player device used to request a session or newapplication, the ID of the player device used, gaming facilitydatabases, reverse email directories, and public records. Otherinformation may be required and/or provided without departing from thescope of the present invention. Examples of screening criteria include,but are not limited to, location, age, credit score, and whether theplayer provides the correct answer or answers to personal informationquestions.

Screening may also include the collection of non-intrusive data.Examples of non-intrusive data include credit reports, information frompublic records, the IP address from which the account requestoriginated, the ID of the player device from which the account requestwas sent, the system's internal database or history, and reverse emaildirectories. The player's Media Access Control (MAC) address or deviceserial number may also be used. A MAC address is assigned by amanufacturer for uniquely identifying a particular physical networkinternet card used by a computer or electronic device to access theInternet or Intranet. Existing databases may be used to ascertain acountry in which the device was purchased to a certain degree ofaccuracy to help screen out ineligible players located in foreigncountries. Similarly, a computer's serial number may be requested aspart of the new player application process, and may be obtainedindependently by the screening application. The serial number may belooked up in a database to verify a player's location and/or identifystolen player accounts.

If the player does not pass the automatic screening, the player accountis manually screened (310). Manual screening is discussed in furtherdetail below with reference to FIG. 4. Accounts that pass automaticscreening are also randomly selected for manual screening (312). If amanually screened account fails, the account data is sent to a declinedaccount feedback module (314) and the player account is denied (316). Ifan account passes screening, manual or automatic, the account data issent to an accepted account feedback module (318) and the account isaccepted (320). The embodiment described is exemplary only, and theinvention is not intended to be limited to what is shown. For example,in other embodiments, screening may be only partially automatic, orentirely manual.

FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an account verificationprocess incorporating a manual screening in accordance with the presentinvention. In this embodiment, if the account or account applicationfails to meet one or more account criteria (e.g., the eligibility or theannoyance algorithm criteria), the account or application is manuallyreviewed. A gaming facility may choose to reject a player without manualscreening depending on the results of the automatic screening (e.g., thecomposite score is above a particular threshold or the cost of annoyanceis below a particular threshold). An account that passes automaticscreening may also be randomly selected for manual screening.

In the embodiment shown, a score is received (402) and an account isevaluated to determine whether manual review is desired (404). Manualreview may require live player contact, with the player being asked tosubmit to a manual review (406). If the player refuses a manual review,the account is rejected and service is refused (408). If the playeraccepts, the documents provided to show player age and locationeligibility are manually reviewed (410). If the player age and locationinformation meet system criteria, the manual reviewer approves thetransaction (412). If the application fails the document only manualscreening, the application may undergo manual information verificationscreening (414). The gaming facility may determine the weight given tothis manual review. In this screening, the manual reviewer performs amore detailed review of the account application information and has theability to modify the data entered by the automatic screening process.Fields in the manually screened application may be changed, updated, oraugmented. Manual information verification screening (414) includesconsideration of one or more of a player's oral arguments for why he orshe should be eligible, manually collected additional information (e.g.,applicant's current employment), the player's reputation among otherestablishments (e.g., player skill level, use of prohibited playmethodologies, public behavior, the number of other players the playermay attract), and individual judgment as to the player's worthiness.Manual information verification screening (414) may be performed by oneor more people experienced in gaming facility operations, marketing orconsumer credit. It may also involve reviewing of all of the pieces ofinformation thus far collected on a player (and sometimes requestingadditional information like current bank statements), to determinewhether the player is eligible.

If the player fails manual information verification screening (414), theapplication or account is declined and service is refused (408). If theapplication passes the manual information verification, the systemchecks to see if data was modified (416). If data was modified, themanually screened application is placed back into the automatedscreening process (418). If no data was modified, the transaction isallowed (412). As a final step, whether the account is allowed orrejected, the screening results are input into a model feedback process(420). The embodiment shown is exemplary only. For example, in otherembodiments, the house may choose whether to accept or reject an accounteven if it passes manual screening. In other embodiments, accounts maybe selected for the manual verification process without regard to thescore. This can be used to validate the results of and provide feedbackto automated processes.

Jurisdictional Screening

FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary embodiment in accordance with thepresent invention where jurisdictional requirements are determined andplayers are screened against the determined jurisdictional requirements.In the embodiment shown, each of the screening requirements must besatisfied or the player request is denied, and the request and reasonfor denying the request are logged. However, other variations may beimplemented without departing from the scope of the present invention.

As shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 5, when a player requestsentry (502), the system checks to see if the player has an account(504). If the player account exists, the system checks to see if theplayer is in an authorized jurisdiction (506). The criteria for anauthorized jurisdiction may be determined based on the location of thegaming center (120). If the player is in an authorized jurisdiction, thesystem of the present invention checks to see if the player is in anauthorized location within the jurisdiction (508). The system alsochecks to see if the player is utilizing an authorized device foraccessing the system (510). Authorized devices may vary fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction. Non-limiting examples of authorizedlocations may include a gaming facility, retail outlet, or even a home.Players may play on a computer, an electronic gaming table, kiosk, aportable gaming device, or any other electronic device that can connectto a data communication network. Other non-limiting examples of gamingdevices include personal digital assistants (PDAs) and mobile phones.The player device may connect to the server via Internet, Intranet, LAN,WAN, satellite, telephone, or other communication channels or interfacedevices.

As discussed above, some non-limiting examples of information the systemof the present invention may use to determine if the player meetsjurisdictional requirements include, but are not limited to, (a) the IPaddress from which the account request originated, (b) the ID of theplayer device from which the account request was sent, (c) the system'sinternal database or history, and (d) reverse email directories. Theplayer's Media Access Control (MAC) address or device serial number mayalso be used. Additionally, existing databases that indicate in whichcountry a computer was purchased may be used to help screen outineligible players located in ineligible jurisdictions. Similarly, theserial number of player devices may be requested as part of the newplayer application process and may be obtained independently during thescreening of the application. The device serial number may be looked upin a database to verify location, and can also be used to identifystolen player identifications. If these criteria are verified, thesystem of the present invention applies the applicable jurisdictionalrules (512) and allows play (514). If any of the screening process shownin FIG. 5 is found in the negative (i.e., “NO”), or if these criteriaare not verified, the system of the present invention denies play (516)and logs the reason for disallowance. The number and order of stepsshown, and the factors used to determine jurisdictional eligibility inFIG. 5 are exemplary only, and not intended to be limited to theembodiment shown.

Business Rules

FIG. 6 shows an example of business rules used to screen players inaccordance with the present invention. The exemplary rules shown may beapplied to new players or existing players. Each rule may be weighted toindicate its relevant weight in reference to other business rules. Theweighting may also be based on whether it is calculated in real time,and/or based on the age of information. In the embodiment shown, thebusiness rules are assigned a relative weight of 1-5. These weightingsare exemplary only and not intended to be a limiting feature. Otherbusiness rules may be used to examine the aggregate results of otherbusiness rules to make a determination, and business rules may benested. In the example with nested rules, only the final outcome for theoutermost rule may be evaluated for simplicity.

As shown in FIG. 6, the business rules used to determine playereligibility are given the greatest weight because they tend to beabsolutes. For example, if a player must be 21 years old to be eligiblewithin a certain jurisdiction, one eligibility business rule would statethat the age must be greater than or equal to 21 years, and the ratingof the age information available for the player be greater than X.Another example of a business rule might involve a comparison of acertain piece of data to a range of data values observed in otherplayers. For example, if a player requests one or more additionalsessions, and the total time played since signing on is greater than 95%(or X number of standard deviations from the mean) of the times observedby all other players in the last three months, this may indicate theplayer is using a computer program for play, or multiple people areplaying on the account. This may be undesirable behavior that could betaken into account during screening.

In the embodiment shown in FIG. 6, a TRUE value is assigned if the datameets the criteria of the rule and a FALSE if it does not. A base scoremay be generated between 0 and 1 that can be interpreted similarly to astatistical confidence level and compared to a set threshold. Forexample, a base score of 0.95 may be set to represent a 95% confidencethat a player should not be allowed to utilize the services. In theembodiment shown in FIG. 6, all business rules in the “Reject” category(602) are given a base score of 1 for a TRUE result (i.e., data meetsthe rule criteria) and a 0 for a FALSE result (i.e., data does not meetthe rule criteria). TRUE values in all other categories may be looked atin light of other factors before a request is rejected. For otherbusiness rules, the base score may be adjusted up or down. For example,business rules in the “Suspicious” category (604) may be given a basescore of 0.90 for a TRUE outcome, and a zero for a FALSE outcome, withsimilar modifications for data accuracy rating as in the “Reject”category. All business rules in the “Negative Influence” category (606)may be given a 0.5 base score for a TRUE outcome and a zero for a FALSEoutcome. Base scores may be adjusted for the data accuracy rating, andthe base score may be adjusted up or down for a given rule. If the scoreassigned for any business rule is 1, a base score of 1.0 is returned bythe business rule step. Otherwise, the base score returned by this stepmay be the average, weighted average (e.g., score multiplied by thebusiness rule weighting value) or other method for summarizing basescores ranging in value from 0 to 1. In the example shown, no base scoreis assigned for rules in the “Synthetic” or “Informational” categories(608, 610).

In an alternative embodiment, a base score may be modified based on theestimated accuracy of the data. For example, the base score mayoptionally be modified by a data accuracy deduction. The amount of thededuction may vary based on the weighting of the business rule used toproduce the base score. For example, no deduction is be made for basescores resulting from business rules with a 5 weighting. As anotherexample, a deduction of 0.05 may be deducted from a base scorecalculated from a business rule with a 4 weighting, 0.1 for a businessrule with a 3 weighting, 0.15 for a business rule with a 2 weighting,and 0.2 for a business rule with a 1 rating. If the available data isconsidered unreliable, the base score may be discarded without regard toits business rule weighting.

Feedback-Based Statistical Modeling

In various exemplary embodiments, once a base score is generated usingbusiness rules, it may be refined using predictive statistical modeling.In one embodiment, computational algorithms may be utilized to calculatethe likelihood of someone being ineligible to receive a requestedservice, represented as a number between 0 and 1. Non-limiting examplesof the algorithms that may be used include logistic multiple regression,neural networks, Bayesian classification, variance analysis, andclassification trees. In other embodiments, one or more plurality ofstatistical techniques for evaluating output from several algorithms(e.g., analysis of predicted versus actual outcomes; r-squared andDurbin-Watson scores) may be utilized alone or in combination, selectingthe output of the best algorithm.

In another embodiment, statistical models may utilize historical data(independent variables) in conjunction with actual known outcomes(dependent variables) to train the model and evaluate its effectivenessat predicting results where the outcome is unknown or unexpected. Thisis referred to as “teaching the model” and is sometimes referred to asan adaptive algorithm. The predictive power of statistical models may beimproved by updating the training data utilized to build the predictivemodel, thereby obtaining new results. An example of how to achieve thisis to incorporate a feedback loop in the calculations. As errors areidentified, corrected data may be made available to the modelingprocess. For example, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the dataobtained from manual screening is input into a model feedback process.

In yet another embodiment, several models may be employed based on theireffectiveness at predicting various outcomes for given service requestsgiven the available data about the player. As more data is available,this modeling step can become quite complex. The trained model providesrules or equations that are used to calculate the likelihood that aplayer is ineligible at that moment in time, based on the availabledata. A score of 0.95, for instance, would indicate a 95% confidencethat this player is ineligible for the requested service. The results ofall models are summarized into a single score using a weighted average.Weights may be assigned by the end user based on experience, or by thestatistical evaluators mentioned above, or a combination of both.

The Composite Score

FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an exemplary embodiment of the inventionusing a composite score to determine eligibility in accordance with thepresent invention. The composite score in accordance with the presentinvention incorporates statistical modeling, enabling automaticevaluation of many more factors than simple business rules (e.g., rateof past play, numbers of games played, value of the residence accordingto public records, etc.). The composite score may incorporate andidentify relevant factors previously unknown to those creating thebusiness rules, and provides an evaluation of the risk of providingservice, rather than simply evaluating whether a player is eligible. Inaddition, the exemplary embodiment of the present invention may usestatistical modeling to factor in the relevance of missing documents orinformation. Also, rather than having two possibilities (e.g., eligibleor ineligible), the composite score allows for finer granularity inplayer classification. For example, a player may be restricted to aparticular play methodology (rules) and strategy or provided strategiccoaching rather than simply denying service to the player. Such playerclassifications are exemplary only and not limited to those discussed.

In the embodiment shown in FIG. 7A, the composite score is calculatedusing one or more of (a) a summarized score returned by the businessrule evaluation, (b) a summarized score returned by the best performingstatistical model or models, and (c) statistical evaluators for thestatistical models used for scores. For example, a new player requestsaccess for the first time or an existing player requests to start a newsession (702). Next, the system generates at least one base score usingbusiness rules (704). Next, the system generates at least one compositescore using statistical modeling (706). The composite score mayoptionally be displayed with a background report with information on thefactors and information used to calculate the composite score (708). Thesystem then determines whether the composite score is acceptable (710).If the score is acceptable play is allowed (712). If the score is notacceptable, it is flagged for manual screening (714).

In another embodiment, the output may be the average of the businessrule and statistical modeling score, though some embodiments may utilizedifferent weighting for each modeling score. In some cases, the weightgiven to the statistical modeling score may be a function of thestatistical evaluators calculated for the underlying model or models.The weights given to the individual components may also be a function ofother automated analysis. For example, other statistical models orvariables may be utilized. In other embodiments, multiple compositescores are generated for a single player, with different compositescores generated if, for example, the player elects to play by a certainstrategy, only bet in certain ways, or changes some other criteria.Composite score calculations may be performed at any time.

The composite score may also be used to determine whether to take one ormore actions (e.g., whether to allow or disallow play, or allow play butonly under certain conditions) based on whether the score is within aparticular range. For example, if the composite score is below a certainrange, the player is allowed to play any available game. If thecomposite score is above one range, but below another, the player isallowed to play only certain games, or only play according to one ormore set strategies. If the composite score is above another range, theplayer is denied service.

In another embodiment, a player may be eligible for a gaming opportunityif the composite score is within a first range, but ineligible if thecomposite score is within a second range. If the composite score isabove a first threshold but below a second threshold, the player isconditionally eligible for a gaming opportunity. For example, as shownin FIG. 7B, if the composite score is in a range at or below threshold A(722), the player is automatically allowed to receive the servicesrequested. If the composite score is in a range above threshold A butbelow threshold B (724), the data is provided to an end user for manualverification prior to providing the service. If the composite score isabove threshold B (726), the player is ineligible. The values ofthresholds A and B is adjustable and may be adjusted by a systemadministrator or a gaming facility representative, for example.

The composite score of the present invention has several advantages overconventional processes used in the gambling industry today. By using acomposite score, business rule processing may be automated. By weightingthe business rules, consideration may be given to more subjectivefactors (such as whether the player is a high roller). Additionally, thecomposite score may also be used for regulatory compliance or forimplementing company policies. Rules used for regulatory compliance orfor implementing company policies are typically absolute rules. Forexample, a player must be over 21, located outside of the United States,or have a balance greater than X on the account. If any one of theregulatory conditions is not met, service may be denied.

The Cost of Annoyance

FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that calculates a cost ofannoyance in accordance with the present invention. A cost of annoyanceis calculated if a player's composite score indicates the player isineligible to play the requested game. In the embodiment shown in FIG.8, the system receives the composite score (802) and establishes thatthe player meets jurisdictional eligibility requirements for play (804).The system then checks the player's credit rating (806). The creditrating check uses traditional metrics known to those skilled in the artin the credit industry, and may also include metrics such as past playerhistory at participating establishments. If the credit rating issufficient to play the requested game, play is allowed (808). If thecredit rating is insufficient to play the requested game, the systemcalculates the cost of annoyance (810) in accordance with the followingequation:

COA=b(1−c)−a(d)

where b is the potential revenue, (1−c) is the probability the playerwill not leave, a is the cost of allowing a player to play, and d is theprobability the player is ineligible. In another embodiment, the cost ofa false positive is calculated by multiplying the cost of allowing anineligible player to play by the probability that the player isineligible.

The system then checks to see if the cost of annoyance is above anapproval threshold F (812). If the cost of annoyance is above approvalthreshold F, play is allowed (808). If the cost of annoyance is belowapproval threshold F but above a rejection threshold E, a manual reviewis performed (814). An example of a manual review is provided in theexplanation above for the embodiment shown in FIG. 4. If the playerpasses the manual review, play is allowed (808). If the cost ofannoyance is below threshold E, or if the player fails manual review,play is disallowed (816). The value of thresholds E and F may beadjustable.

In accordance with the present invention, the cost of annoyanceindicates whether it may be profitable to override the composite scoreand allow a player to play a requested game even if the player'scomposite score indicates the player is ineligible. For example, even ifthe player has a poor composite score because of a low credit rating ora history of failing to pay, that player may still bring in many playersthat generate revenue. While the player's profile may indicate that theplayer is ineligible for a $5,000 line of credit, for example, thatplayer may have previously attracted other players who generated $50,000of revenue for the gaming facility, for example. Therefore, in thisexemplary scenario, even though the player's composite score indicatesthat the player should be denied service, it would still be profitableto allow that player to play.

In certain embodiments, the cost of annoyance may be calculated when theplayer's composite score is within a particular range. For example, ifthe composite score is above a threshold C but below a threshold D, thesystem calculates a cost of annoyance. If the cost of annoyance iswithin a range X, the player is allowed to play. If the cost ofannoyance is within a range Y, then service may be denied. If the costof annoyance is between X and Y, the player may be manually screened foreligibility. The value of thresholds C, D, X, and Y may be adjustable.

A gaming facility may measure player value by calculating how muchrevenue the player brought into the establishment in the past andestimating the player's potential value in the future (sometimesreferred to as estimated “lifetime value”). Where the gaming facilityhas a statistical house advantage (i.e., over the long run, a gamingfacility is statistically expected to keep a certain percentage of allamounts bet), a player's value is usually measured in terms of atheoretical win (the amount wagered on each type of game played timeswhat the gaming facility is statistically expected to win on theparticular game times the number of times an average player plays thegame). Where a gaming facility collects only a service charge per game,the individual player's contribution to this charge is used as thetheoretical win. Costs such as premiums given to attract the player toplay may be deducted from the player's estimated lifetime value.

The cost of allowing the player to play is based on whether there is anyrecord of fines received or levied as a result of that player, anyuncollectible debt already lost to the player, and any history ofcomplaints against the player. The cost of not allowing the player toplay is based on revenues that would be lost from refusing to allow theplayer to play, calculated from average revenues previously receivedfrom the player, estimated revenues that would be received in the futureif the player were allowed to play (calculated using the averagetransactions times the frequency times the number of transactions in aperiod), and the estimated loss of future additional players referred,based on the number of previous referrals received from the player.Other factors may include the player's line of credit, the number of badchecks written, any outstanding credit balance, how often the playervisits, the player's location, and the number of times the player hasvisited the gaming facility.

Synthetic False Outcomes

During the screening process, the screening algorithms may produce twotypes of errors: (a) false positive and (b) false negative results. Afalse positive occurs when an eligibility algorithm classifies anineligible player as eligible. A false negative occurs when aneligibility algorithm classifies an eligible player as ineligible. Theseerrors may result due to faulty inputs or criteria used during thescreening process. Calculating a cost of annoyance in accordance withthe present invention mediates the risk of false positive scores thatallow an ineligible player to play and false negative scores thatprevent an eligible player from playing.

The cost of a false positive (i.e., erroneously allowing a player toplay) is relatively simple to calculate because the reasons for denyingservices to a player are usually clear. For example, if the falsepositive results in allowing a player with a poor credit rating or aninsufficient account balance to play, the gaming facility may have tocover the player's losses. The cost and the risk involved of a falsenegative (erroneously denying service to an eligible player) may be moredifficult to determine. If a gaming facility denies service to aneligible player, the player may become annoyed and take businesselsewhere. Not only would the gaming facility then lose the revenueassociated with that particular transaction, it would lose revenue fromfuture transactions from the player, and possibly from others to whomthe player relates the experience.

Another category of false positive and false negative conditions occurswhen the algorithm produces the correct results (the composite scoreaccurately reflects the risk based on the available inputs), butadditional factors were not taken into consideration that may havegenerated a different result. This is called a synthetic false outcome.A synthetic false outcome may be either a synthetic false positive, or asynthetic false negative. In accordance with the present invention,manual reviews may be used to provide feedback to the model as it is areliable means of identifying synthetic false positives or syntheticfalse negatives produced by the automated screening processes.

A synthetic false positive occurs when a player is rightfully deniedplay based on the player's composite score, but whose play is stilldesirable to the gaming facility. Conversely, for example, a syntheticfalse negative occurs when a player is rightfully allowed play based onthe composite score, but whose play is undesirable to the gamingfacility. The cost of the false negative is calculated by multiplyingthe cost of denying an eligible player from playing by the probabilitythat the player is eligible. The cost of denying an eligible player fromplaying is calculated by averaging the revenue earned from the player inprevious gaming sessions. The cost of allowing the player to play is themaximum potential loss to the gaming establishment for the gamingactivity requested by the player. If the player is a new player,calculations may be performed using data from one or more profiles ofestablished accounts of players with player data similar to the newplayer.

Play on an Existing Account

FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary embodiment for gaining access to thegaming system in accordance with the present invention. As shown in FIG.9, a player enters a gaming facility (902) and decides to play online(904). The player accesses a terminal to sign on to the system. Aterminal is any device that can be used to access the desired game orservice. The system of the present invention checks to see if the playeralready has an account (906). If the player does not, the player isasked to submit an application for a new account (908). A non-limitingexample of a procedure for submitting an application for a new accountis described above for the embodiment shown in FIG. 2. If the player hasan existing account, the player is signed on to the system (910). Oncethe player signs on, the player account is checked to determine whetherit passes one or more screening algorithms (912). The number and type ofalgorithms used may vary from establishment to establishment.Non-limiting examples include jurisdictional algorithms, credit checkalgorithms, and the cost of annoyance algorithm. The player could alsobe screened for a history of use of impermissible playing methodologies,past inappropriate public behavior, and whether the player is listed onany regulatory or exclusion list. If the player account passes thescreening algorithms, the transaction is allowed (914).

Even if the account fails one of more of the screening algorithms, thetransaction may still be allowed. If the application fails to meet oneor more of the screening algorithms, the player is offered a manualtransaction review (916). If the player refuses a manual review, thetransaction is refused. If the player accepts, the transaction ismanually reviewed (918). If the transaction fails the manual review, thetransaction is denied (920). If, however, the transaction passes manualreview, the transaction is allowed (914). An example of a manualscreening process is described above for the embodiment shown in FIG. 4.

FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary embodiment for verifying theeligibility of a player wishing to participate in a game in accordancewith the present invention. In this embodiment, players are screened foreligibility and the cost of annoyance. When a player with an existingaccount signs on to the system (1002), the account is checked for validentries (1004). Examples of what constitute a valid entry are discussedabove for the embodiment shown in FIG. 2. If the account is for a validplayer, the player is allowed to select from available game options(1006). If the player is not a valid player, the transaction is rejected(1008). In other embodiments, if the player is not a valid player, thesystem may invite the player to complete an application for a newaccount.

Once a valid player selects an available game option, the transaction isscreened by one or more applicable eligibility algorithms (1010).Eligibility algorithms may include but are not limited to jurisdictionaleligibility and credit eligibility. Other algorithms may be used and mayvary from gaming facility to gaming facility. If the player is eligible,the transaction may then be screened by a cost of annoyance algorithm(1012). An example of the cost of annoyance algorithm is described abovefor the embodiment shown in FIG. 8. If the transaction passes theannoyance algorithm screening, the transaction is checked for compliancewith house rules (1014). Non-limiting examples of house rules includeplayer skill level, use of playing methodologies prohibited by thehouse, or a minimum cost of annoyance score. Other house rules may beused, and may vary from gaming facility to gaming facility.

If the transaction passes all criteria, the account is accepted (1016).If the transaction fails to meet one or more criteria (e.g., theeligibility or annoyance criteria), the transaction may be manuallyreviewed (1018). If the player refuses a manual review, the transactionis rejected (1008). An example of the manual review process is discussedabove for the embodiment shown in FIG. 4. If the transaction fails themanual review, the transaction is rejected (1008). If the transactionpasses manual review, the house chooses whether to accept or reject thetransaction (1020). Optionally, the manually screened transaction may beplaced back into the screening process at the annoyance algorithmsection prior to a final decision on whether to accept the transaction.

Enforced Strategy and Player Monitoring

FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present inventionallowing a player to “bank” a game. A player banking a game is called a“player banker.” In the embodiment shown, the player requests entry intothe system (1102). Entry is granted through a verification process(1104). In the verification process the player account is screened and acost of annoyance is calculated. If the account meets screening and costof annoyance criteria, the player is granted entry into the game(“seated”) (1106). Once seated, the player waits for a sufficient numberof players wishing to play. Next, the system of the present inventionchecks to see if players are satisfied with individual bankrolls (1108).If the players are satisfied with all individual bankrolls, play begins(1110). If the players are not satisfied with all individual playerbankrolls, the system of the present invention checks to see if a playeris willing to bankroll the game (1112). If a player is willing tobankroll the game (i.e., be a player banker), the player selects anauthorized player banker strategy (1114). Once the player selects anauthorized strategy, play continues with the player acting as a playerbanker (1116). If no player is willing to bankroll the game, players maychoose to play without a player banker (1118).

Player bankers are customarily used in jurisdictions where gamingfacilities are not able to act as the “house” (i.e., gaming facilitiesdo not collect lost wagers and pay winning wagers but instead collectservice fees from players for each game played). In these jurisdictions,one or more of the players must ensure there is enough money to coverall winning bets). For instance, blackjack requires a bank because theplayers play against the house, as opposed to poker where players playagainst each other. Sometimes, none of the players acting as the househave enough money to cover a game where every player wins their wager.This usually means that the other players therefore bet less than theydesire. To avoid this, in some jurisdictions third party entities withenough money to cover all player wins enter games for the purpose ofbeing the banker. Third party entities typically hire a player, give thehired player enough money to cover all bets, and instruct the player toplay using a fixed strategy that gives the player a traditional houseadvantage. In blackjack, for example, this may mean that the playerbanker is required to hit on sixteen or below, and stay on seventeen orabove.

Traditionally, a problem exists where player bankers and dealers mayreduce profits, break regulations, or even steal because it is difficultto monitor their actual play. Without a way to monitor play, it can bedifficult to manage a hired player banker because there is no adequateway to manage the strategy played or his or her claims as to how muchthey have won or lost. Accordingly, player bankers and/or dealers arerequired to play in strict accordance with a particular strategy. Thestrategy used may be any strategy known to those skilled in the art.Strategies may range from the use of one or more probability charts(e.g., the probability of obtaining a given hand in a card game) to moresubjective decisions (e.g., how much to bet based on your opponents'remaining chips). The more well known strategies are found in “Hoyle” or“According to Hoyle” publications. These publications provide card gamerules and strategies for hundreds of games.

In accordance with the present invention, one or more strategies may beincorporated into the system and used to enforce a particular strategyor provide coaching tips based on one or more selected strategies. Inone exemplary embodiment, the strategy enforced or the coaching tipsprovided may be based on one or more of a player's composite scores. Inanother embodiment, strategies may be enforced or coaching provided as aplayer approaches regulatory loss limits. In yet another embodiment, ifa player opts to be the banker, the system of the present inventionforces the player banker to play in a predictable way. The player bankertherefore selects the desired automated house rules with which to play.This could be by Hoyle's rules, rules designated by an employer,industry regulations, or one or more of the strategies previouslydiscussed. A non-limiting example of a play strategy is in blackjackwhere the dealer is often required to take another card on sixteen orless and hold on seventeen or more. In other embodiments of the presentinvention, the player banker plays according to one or more modelingstrategies or according to a specific profile.

FIG. 11 shows an exemplary embodiment where the player banker identifiedin the screening process plays according to a specific strategy inaccordance with the present invention. The system of the presentinvention then ensures that the player plays according to the strategy.As an example of how these rules may be enforced, if a player banker ina game of blackjack attempts to hit on a seventeen or higher, the systemof the present invention may prohibit the player banker from doing so.Conversely, if the player banker tries to hold on a sixteen or less, thesystem of the present invention would require that player to drawanother card. The system of the present invention would monitor thoseplayers and not allow them to play in a way that violates theireligibility criteria.

This player banker scenario is but one example of how an enforcedstrategy may be employed in accordance with the present invention.Another example is that a particular player is identified as a novicecompared to the others “seated” at the table. An enforced strategy inaccordance with the present invention may be imposed on the noviceplayer to improve the player's odds for a particular game. Yet anotherexample of the use of an enforced strategy in accordance with thepresent invention is where a jurisdiction limits the amount of moneythat may be lost during a particular period, the player voluntarily asksfor such a restriction, or the gaming facility opts to limit play basedon the credit rating or other factors. In other instances, the playermay only be allowed to play certain games, or only play for a limitedtime. In those instances, the system may be alerted when a playeridentified in one of these example categories violates a strategy, anduse methods to enforce the strategy, up to up to and including requiringthe player to quit or cash out.

Player Coaching

FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the present inventionthat provides coaching tips to players. In the embodiment shown, a validand eligible player selects a game (1202). The player selects automatedcoaching options from a list of available profiles (1204). The playerthen enters the selected automated coaching parameters (1206). Theplayer then plays the game while receiving coaching from the selectedautomated coach (1208).

Player coaching is a more flexible version of the enforced strategydescribed in the embodiment shown in FIG. 11. However, rather thanrequiring play according to one or more strategies, coaching tips orsuggestions on how to play according to the one or more strategies areprovided to the player. The player is not required to play according tothe tips or coaching provided. Coaching may be given based on a player'scomposite score. For example, if the score falls below a certain range,coaching may be available to the player. Coaching may also be providedif the player has less than a predetermined credit rating. Coaching issimilar to the enforced strategy method used on player bankers, exceptthat coaching is a suggested strategy instead of a required strategy.Coaching may also involve providing the player with information toassist in play. In other embodiments, coaching may be made available asa player approaches regulatory loss limits. Coaching tips may also beused to make the player “smarter.” For instance, if a player is below apredetermined level of playing experience, the player may find itbeneficial to know the chances for being dealt a particular hand basedon what has already happened during the game. For example, in blackjack,the player may be coached to hold on a seventeen or higher, and to hiton a sixteen or lower. Players may also receive coaching tips on theodds of drawing a desired card during a game, or of the odds of anotherplayer having a better hand. Such tips are exemplary only, and notlimited to what is mentioned. Other coaching tips could be based onHoyle's rules, or other coaching aids known to those skilled in the art.

Coaching may be made available using computer assisted prompts, byproviding the odds of success playing a particular hand, or by providinghints based on one or more playing aids or playing strategies known tothose skilled in the art. As a non-limiting example, hints can bepackaged up as hints from personalities. For instance, a likeness of apoker celebrity's face may come up and say in a draw poker game, “Well,you have a pair of twos in your hand and an ace. If you draw two cardsyou have a chance.”

Automated Play

FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary embodiment that determines whether aplayer is eligible for automated play in accordance with the presentinvention. In the embodiment shown, the player accesses a gaming site(1302) and the system of the present invention checks to see if theplayer is an established player (1304). If the player is not anestablished player, the player completes an account application (1306).If the player is an established player, the player completes the loginform (1308).

Once the player logs in, the player account passes through an automatedscreening process to determine whether the account passes one or moreautomated screening algorithms (1310). Screening algorithms may varybetween gaming establishments. Non-limiting examples include businessrule algorithms, statistical modeling algorithms, jurisdictionalalgorithms, credit check algorithms, and the cost of annoyancealgorithm. The cost of annoyance may be used to screen for the use ofimpermissible playing methodologies, and may be used to screen for aplayer's ability to generate revenue for the gaming facility in spite ofone or more negative scores. Other variables, such as a player's abilityto bring in famous players, may also be considered. If the playeraccount passes the screening algorithms, the player enters a virtual“lobby.” From here, the player may select various gaming opportunities.For purposes of example only, the player selects automated play (1312).

If the player account fails to meet one or more of the screeningalgorithms, the player account is manually screened (1314). An exampleof manual screening is discussed above for the embodiment shown in FIG.4. If the transaction fails the manual screening, service is denied andthe player is provided an explanation for the rejection (1316). If theplayer account passes manual screening, the player enters the virtual“lobby” and, for the purposes of this example, selects a game to play inan automated play mode (1312).

Once the player selects automated play, the system of the presentinvention determines whether the player is eligible (and under whatconditions, if any) to participate in automated play (1318). In thisexample, the system of the present invention checks to see if the playerpossesses the required experience level of experience for the game.Player experience may be calculated based all or in part on player age,the number of that type of game the player has previously played, thetotal or average player winnings or losses in a given time period, andthe average skill level rating of games the player has a history ofplaying. These factors may be weighted, or used in combination. If theplayer qualifies, automated play is allowed (1320).

These factors are exemplary only, and others may be used withoutdeparting from the scope of the embodiment shown. For example, playerclassification may be changed after the player wins or loses a certainnumber of games and may be automatically or manually updated by thesystem. In another embodiment, the experience level required to play aparticular game is compared to the average experience level of playersalready in the game. In yet another embodiment, a player may request achange in player classification. In other embodiments, a player'scomposite score may be used to determine eligibility for automated play.In another embodiment, the cost of annoyance may be used, and anoverride score may be calculated to determine whether play should beallowed even if the player fails to meet screening criteria.

FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of an eligible playerplaying in an automated play mode in accordance with the presentinvention. Once a player is determined to be eligible for automatedplay, the player may enter the desired parameters and play in theautomated play mode. In this embodiment, the eligible player selectsfrom an option of games available for automated play (1402). The playerthen selects from a list of available automated play strategies (1404).The player then enters the selected automated play parameters (1406).Next the player selects one or more game options from a list of optionsavailable to the player (1408). In the example embodiment shown, thelist of available game options depends upon a player's composite scoreor other eligibility criteria. If the eligibility processes place aplayer in the proper category, he or she may choose from a list ofavailable strategies (e.g., use standard house rules for blackjack—hiton 16, stay on 17) put in parameters to govern the play (e.g., averagebet, buy-in, how many games to play, minimum and maximum bankroll to endplay) and the game software plays the game according to this parameter(1410). In certain embodiments, the player may choose to participate inseveral games at once. The player may allow play to continueunmonitored, or the player may monitor the game. The player may elect toplay a certain number of hands, to play until a certain amount is won orlost, or some other criteria chosen by the player and/or the system.Although the exemplary embodiments described herein may be described inreference to specific games, other gaming scenarios are also possible.For example, the invention is equally applicable to other card games,such as pai gow, and blackjack. Automated play may be used in othergames as well.

Although several embodiments of the present invention and its advantageshave been described in detail, it will be apparent to those skilled inthe art that various modifications and variations can be made in thesystem and method of the present invention without departing from thespirit or scope of the invention. Thus, it is intended that the presentinvention cover the modifications and variations of this inventionprovided they come within the scope of the appended claims and theirequivalents.

1. A method of applying for a gaming opportunity, comprising the stepsof: accessing a server for the gaming opportunity through a playerdevice; providing identification data to the server; and receiving anindication of eligibility for the gaming opportunity from the serverbased on at least one composite score indicative of a scale ofeligibility for the gaming opportunity, the composite score obtained byweighting disparate player data based on at least one business rule andapplying the weighted data to at least one decision model to generatethe score, the disparate player data obtained from a plurality of datasources.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of accessing theserver includes analyzing user-specific information.
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the step of accessing the server includes checkingwhether the server is accessed from an authorized jurisdiction.
 4. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the step of accessing the server includeschecking whether the server is accessed from an authorized locationwithin a jurisdiction.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the step ofaccessing the server includes checking whether the server is accessedusing an authorized player device.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein thestep of accessing the server includes checking one or more of as IPaddress from which the server is accessed, a Media Access Control (MAC)address of the player device used to access the server, a serial numberof the player device used to access the server, reverse emaildirectories, and gaming facility databases.
 7. The method of claim 1,wherein the disparate player data is validated by verifying the playerdata using at least one independent data source.
 8. The method of claim1, wherein the business rule includes jurisdictional requirements. 9.The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes agerequirements of the player.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein thebusiness rule includes an exclusion list.
 11. The method of claim 1,wherein the business rule includes a player skill level requirement. 12.The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includes a cost ofannoyance.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the business rule includesa history of use by the player of impermissible playing methods.
 14. Themethod of claim 1, wherein weights for the weighting is adjustable. 15.The method of claim 1, wherein the player data are weighted based on ageof the player data.
 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the player dataare weighted based on accuracy.
 17. The method of claim 1, whereinregulatory criteria are given the greatest weight.
 18. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the player data are weighted based on comparison to arange of values observed in other players.
 19. The method of claim 1,wherein nested business rules are used to weight the player data. 20.The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one decision model includesa feedback loop.
 21. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least onedecision model includes predictive statistical modeling.
 22. The methodof claim 1, wherein the at least one decision model includes an adaptivealgorithm.
 23. The method of claim 22, wherein the adaptive algorithm isat least one of a logical multiple regression, a neural network, aBayesian classification, a variance analysis, and a classification tree.24. The method of claim 1, wherein the composite score includes at leastone base score.
 25. The method of claim 24, wherein the base score isadjustable based on any one of (a) weight of the player data used tocalculate the base score, (b) accuracy of the player data used tocalculate the base score, (c) age of the player data used to calculatethe base score, and (d) completeness of the player data used tocalculate the base score.
 26. The method of claim 1, wherein thecomposite score includes an averaged base score.
 27. The method of claim26, wherein at least one composite score is calculated as an average ofat least two base scores.
 28. The method of claim 1, wherein theindication of eligibility indicates that the player is eligible for thegaming opportunity if the composite score is within a first range. 29.The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of eligibility indicatesthat the player is ineligible for the gaming opportunity if thecomposite score is within a second range.
 30. The method of claim 1,wherein the indication of eligibility indicates that the player isconditionally eligible for the gaming opportunity if the composite scoreis above a first threshold but below a second threshold.
 31. The methodof claim 30, wherein the first and second thresholds are adjustable. 32.The method of claim 1, wherein a cost of annoyance is determined if thecomposite score is within a second range.
 33. The method of claim 32,wherein the cost of annoyance is based on at least one of a cost ofallowing the player to play, a cost of not allowing the player to play,and probability of losing future revenue from the player.
 34. The methodof claim 32, wherein the cost of annoyance is determined based onestimated player revenue, probability that the player will not leave,cost of allowing the player to play, and probability that the player isineligible.
 35. The method of claim 34, wherein the estimated playerrevenue is calculated based on a theoretical win per game and number oftimes an average player plays a game.
 36. The method of claim 32,wherein the player is indicated as eligible for the gaming opportunityif the cost of annoyance is within a third range.
 37. The method ofclaim 32, wherein the player is indicated as ineligible for the gamingopportunity if the cost of annoyance is within a fourth range.
 38. Themethod of claim 32, where the player is manually screened foreligibility of the gaming opportunity if the cost of annoyance isbetween a third and fourth threshold.
 39. The method of claim 32,wherein the step of determining the cost of annoyance includessubtracting the cost of a false positive from the revenue lost from notallowing the player to play.
 40. The method of claim 39, wherein thestep of determining the cost of annoyance includes subtracting cost of afalse negative from the cost of allowing the player to play.
 41. Themethod of claim 30, wherein the indication of eligibility is conditionedon the player receiving coaching during play.
 42. The method of claim41, wherein coaching is provided according to at least one gamingstrategy.
 43. The method of claim 41, wherein coaching is provided if aplayer has less than a predetermined credit rating.
 44. The method ofclaim 41, wherein coaching is provided to a player below a predeterminedlevel of playing experience.
 45. The method of claim 41, whereincoaching is provided from a compilation of tips from at least one gamingcelebrity.
 46. The method of claim 30, wherein the indication ofeligibility is conditioned on the player having to play according to atleast one predetermined gaming strategy.
 47. The method of claim 46,wherein the at least one predetermined gaming strategy is required ifthe player is below a predetermined level of playing experience.
 48. Themethod of claim 46, wherein the player is monitored for compliance withthe at least one predetermined gaming strategy.
 49. The method of claim28, wherein the player with at least one composite score within thefirst range is allowed to play in an automated playing mode.
 50. Themethod of claim 46, wherein the player playing according to the at leastone predetermined gaming strategy is allowed to play in an automatedplaying mode.
 51. A system for a gaming opportunity, comprising: aplayer device in communication with a server, the player deviceproviding identification data to the server, and receiving an indicationof eligibility for the gaming opportunity from the server based on atleast one composite score indicative of a scale of eligibility for thegaming opportunity, the composite score obtained by weighting disparateplayer data based on at least one business rule and applying theweighted data to at least one decision model to generate the score, thedisparate player data obtained from a plurality of data sources.
 52. Acomputer program product comprising computer readable medium havingstored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed on acomputer, causes the computer to perform a method of applying for agaming opportunity comprising the steps of: accessing a server for thegaming opportunity through a player device; providing identificationdata to the server; and receiving an indication of eligibility for thegaming opportunity from the server based on at least one composite scoreindicative of a scale of eligibility for the gaming opportunity, thecomposite score obtained by weighting disparate player data based on atleast one business rule and applying the weighted data to at least onedecision model to generate the score, the disparate player data obtainedfrom a plurality of data sources.